Obama Hasn’t Called For ‘All-Out Gun Confiscation’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Full Story
Former President Barack Obama posted a statement on Twitter advocating “tougher gun laws,” reducing the influence of online hate groups, and heightening tolerance following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
He also tweeted a link to piece published by Vox titled: “Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change that.”
The article criticizes candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination for offering weak platforms on gun control. It argues that much more radical steps need to be taken to curb gun violence in the country, making the case, primarily, that there should be a nationwide gun licensing program and that the number of guns available needs to be slashed.
It does suggest that confiscation, or a “mandatory buyback program,” is one option for cutting down the number of guns. But it never suggests an “all-out” confiscation. In fact, it gives so little attention to the idea that it doesn’t even address what a confiscation program would entail.
A headline published on several partisan websites, however, has twisted Obama’s endorsement of that article to make this claim: “Barack Obama Calls For All-Out Gun Confiscation.”
Most of the websites that made the claim cited this passage from the Vox story: “To change the status quo, Democrats should go big. They need to focus on the abundance of guns in the US and develop a suite of policies that directly tackle that issue, from licensing to confiscation to more aggressive bans of certain kinds of firearms (including, perhaps, all semiautomatic weapons or at least some types of handguns).”
But we don’t know which part of the story Obama was highlighting, and an Obama spokesman didn’t respond to our request for clarification on the former president’s tweet. In his statement on Twitter, Obama said this about gun laws:
Obama, Aug. 12: Every time this happens, we’re told that tougher gun laws won’t stop all murders; that they won’t stop every deranged individual from getting a weapon and shooting innocent people in public places. But the evidence shows that they can stop some killings. They can save some families from heartbreak. We are not helpless here. And until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.
When he was president, Obama never proposed gun confiscations of any kind. Rather, he called for closing background check loopholes and banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
He wasn’t able to pass any of that legislation, though, and instead signed a series of executive actions.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.
Sources
Obama, Barack (@BarackObama). Statement. Twitter. 5 Aug 2019.
Obama, Barack (@BarackObama). “Until all of us stand up and insist on holding public officials accountable for changing our gun laws, these tragedies will keep happening.” Twitter. 5 Aug 2019.
Tags
Who is online
173 visitors
You are right in that Obama never called for all out gun confiscation. He was not stupid enough to think that would fly. He was however in favor of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and implementing that in the U.S., which would have pretty much accomplished things in a roundabout way
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is about international arms TRADE. Please support your claim that Obama wanted to 'implement' anything like it in the US.
Quit trying to makeup your own facts
One third of guns sold in the US are imported. Democrats could have an immediate impact by banning importation of firearms. Obama could have done that without Congress. Banning importation of firearms is a matter of trade; an import ban wouldn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment. Foreign gun makers don't have Constitutional rights.
As usual, Democrats are engaged in another political hoax for the purpose of weakening the Constitution and dividing the country.
So much for free trade eh?
What is more important to Democrats; making the rich richer or gun control?
I would hope the concept of Capitalism which helps pays their wages. For which free trade is a bedrock principle.
YMMV
Free trade won't keep us free.
I don't think i inferred that it would.
Stopping gun imports isn't going to stop mass shootings.
I don't think I inferred that it would.
The point is that Obama and Democrats could have made a meaningful impact on guns in the United States by banning imports. And that wouldn't have involved the 2nd amendment at all.
Democrats are all smoke and no candle. Democrats are wickless.
I don't agree. When there is a demand, in this country, someone will provide a supply. I've seen your other threads on this and know how you feel about it but i just don't agree.
It doesn't matter where the guns are coming from. If there is a demand, there will be a supply.
But that demand has only been supplied by imports. The United States has lost its ability to supply its own demand.
If a ban on imported firearms spurs domestic investment and expansion of manufacturing, wouldn't that be a good thing?
What's the down side for banning imported firearms?
Not it's ability, its will. When 200+ year old companies choose to shut down plants because of oppressive state laws, its pretty hard to keep manufacturing local.
Domestically, i suppose yes, it would be a good thing.
Restriction of free commerce is rarely a good thing in my book and should only be used in the most dire situations such as unfair trade practices being practiceded by our trading partners.
Soooo …. The Democrats coulda supported "Made in America" all this time, Without Trump, if they had just put their minds and Hearts into it ?
[Deleted]
Your graphic indicates a recent radical increase in mass shooting over a short time, but not a correspondingly radical increase in the number of guns. In fact, we know that gun ownership is declining over time. Logially, then, guns are not the problem.
Wouldn't that possibly point to the rhetoric spread by people, say,
like Trump ?
How do you mean?
Trump tweets, along with his little 'pep rallies' he seems to need to help with his obvious insecurities, often play on the insecurities of his base.
His base, are the main ones committing these mass shootings.
That's because we have ~65 million more guns than people.
There is NOTHING logical about claiming that guns are not the problem when the issue is mass shootings.
There’s nothing logical claiming legal gun owners are part of the problem. In classic form for many, they would throw the baby out with the bath water as long as it’s not their bath water.
You mean except for the fact that the vast majority of mass shooters are legal gun owners right?
Point?
No I mean that the vast majority of legal gun owners, by far, ARE NOT mass shooters or killers of any kind.
Clearly that distinction is lost on you.
Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars. Cars are inanimate objects aren't they?
If that were true, we wouldn't have many if any drunk drivers.
Really Tex? You're presuming that all drunk drivers are repeat offenders. Why?
So true.
It’s illegal to drive a car drunk just like it’s illegal to murder someone with a gun
One more dog that don’t hunt .....
It's illegal to speed too. Point?
Is your posit that laws are irrelevant because some will always violate them?
You stated that we deny drunk drivers access to cars.
Exactly how do we deny them access?
If we actually denied them access, then no one would drive drunk.
I didn't presume that all drunk drivers are repeat offenders because you didn't mention that they were repeat offenders.
Why are you presuming that I presumed anything at all?
Where did you come up with that from?
No sane individual would do that.
On Earth 1, those convicted of DUI have been known to be required to have a breathalyzer on their vehicle. Drunk? Car don't move. Denied access...
Thousands of people drive under the influence every weekend.
Yet you insist that penalties effect perpetrators despite the FACT that evidence proves it doesn't.
[Deleted]
Many states do not require breathalyzers for first offenders. Not denied access. And in your original statement, you stated absolutely nothing about people convicted of DUI.
True, which makes your statement all the more baffling--"Yet we deny drunk drivers access to cars."
I did? Where? Quote me saying that.
[Deleted]
From Sparty's comment.
Well gee Tex, tell me what your interpretation of Sparty's comment is...
Why bother? You wouldn't understand it, deliberately misinterpret it, and then we would have to talk about it.
Play by yourself.
It is intellectually dishonest to say I stated something when I have NOT.
I realize that is a favorite ploy of some here--argue stuff you make up and claim the other person said.
I don't play that.
That's not a new phenomenon.
No, the issue was the increase in mass shootings. Try reading the graphic under discussion.
No shit. They are denied access to cars after it is determined they can't follow the laws.
Cars are not constitutionally protected.
Oh so you admit that there ARE first offenders.
I presume that since you state that 'Many states do not', you recognize that many DO.
How would you label someone a drunk driver if not for a DUI conviction Tex?
There you go ignoring the FACT that there are first offenders again.
You stated: If we actually denied them access, then no one would drive drunk.
We deny access to guns for those that can't follow the laws too KD. Even Scalia said it was Constitutional to do so.
I never denied it. What are you on about NOW?
No need for your obtuseness. If you see someone kill someone, does that mean that you didn't witness a murder because the person hasn't been convicted yet? SMH
The only thing being ignored here is you ignoring what I actually wrote and attempting to put words in my mouth.
That may be true IF you had EVERY car with a breathalyzer. Not a thing ion the world stopping someone from driving a friend's car drunk, or buying a new one.
https://www.selectsr22insurance.com/which-states-require-a-breathalyzer-after-first...
Apr 09, 2019 · While some States have mandated that all offenders will be subject to this condition, fourteen States have more clearly articulated that the enforcement of this restriction is only applicable to offenders who have registered a high blood alcohol count at the time of their initial offense
I stated "MANY" because MANY do not.
See how that works now?
I did and I read your comment:
How about you explain WHY an increase in the number of guns is required to prove a correlation of guns to an INCREASE in mass shootings?
What do you think happened all of those guns that were sold during the boom years when 2A fanatics insisted that Obama was going to take their guns? Gun sales only started to decline post Trump.
There are about 8 million [3%] 'hardcore super owners' that own about half of the guns in the US. HOW MANY gun owners there are in the US doesn't correlate with HOW MANY guns there are in the US.
How is my question obtuse Tex?
No. Yet there is a presumption of innocence and that person wouldn't be labeled a murderer until they were convicted.
Perhaps that is having an adverse effect.
Bullshit. I read what you wrote and replied factually. I didn't infer that you SAID a fucking thing.
Someone said:
Oh ya, that was YOU.
Actually, driving a vehicle with a court ordered IID is a requirement for a reinstatement of a drivers license. An exception can be sought through the court [usually for work purposes] but otherwise, it's illegal for you to drive a friend's car or to avoid a IID by buying a new car.
FAIL.
And on ignore ya go!
You know damn well what the point is. You’re the one who brought drunk driving into this. It’s no more “legal” to drive drunk than it is to kill someone with a gun.
And yet, you apparently feel it’s okay to own the type of gun that accounts for more deaths in the US, and it’s not even close, than all AR type weapons combined.
Hypocrisy at its worst.
The claim usually made is that we have so many shootings because we have so many guns. The graphic points out that the frequency of mass shootings has tripled since 2011. However, the number of guns has not tripled since 2011. Therefore the frequency of mass shootings is not dependent on the number of guns. There must be something else going on.
Yes, that's what I said.
If only 14 states require breathalyzers for first offenses, then the other 36 do NOT.
My statement stands correctly--MANY states do NOT.
If you think 14 states is many out of 50, so be it, but that is piss-poor math!
A first time DUI is a misdemeanor in most states.
I'm pretty fucking sure that killing someone for the first time with a gun is a felony in EVERY state. Based on the charge and penalty, that makes it MUCH MORE illegal.
The topic isn't gun deaths, it's mass shootings or the INCREASE in mass shootings.
Bullshit.
You had a point?
Did you forget the ignore list thingy?
Not at all.
Just a little bored and needed a laugh or two, so I read your post!
Man you are slipping. That wasn't even a nice try.
We weren't talking DUI's, at least i wasn't. We were talking killing. Now a DUI may lead to a death but then it wouldn't be a misdemeanor in ANY state now would it? Killing someone drunk driving is just as illegal as killing someone with a gun. No matter how hard you try to rationalize it away.
The topic isn't drunk driving and yet you felt that was cogent to the conversation. Hypocrisy pervades one of your comments once again.
Nah, its spot on but honestly, no one expects you to admit it. We know we'll get SOSDD from you.
Since when was "logic" allowed in a liberal gun control conversation?
Well....duh....
Trump is responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened in the entire history of bad things happening, from the eruption of Vesuvius to the fall of Rome to slavery to the Black Death.
Donald Trump literally invented cancer.
Had it not been for Trump, those poor boys in the Light Brigade would be alive today. Half-a-league, half-a-league, half-a-league onward......
So you were so bored that you took me off ignore? That doesn't bode well for the entertainment value of the other members here...
Actually, YOU were talking about drunk driving.
That was you right Sparty?
You've mentioned drunk driving in multiple posts Sparty, though whether it was cogently is arguable.
How so Sparty? What was hypocritic about my comment? Please be specific.
You seem to have an issue understanding the definition of hypocrisy. Again, what was hypocritical about my comment Sparty? Please be specific.
Who are these 'we' you pretend to speak for?
Discussions with you usually end in the same place .... nowhere. When people here disagree with you. You deny, you deflect, you try to redirect and then you report. There's no point to it and I don't feel like getting into another useless debate with you today.
So, that said and like usual, i stand by all my comments here. Especially those that pertain to yours.
100%
Buck up, man, and never sell the comedic value of your own posts so short!
Yes, with you failing to support your comments and bailing.
If only yours had equal value.
If that helps you sleep at night, by all means, keep believing that.
Still standing by everything i said.
But no worries. If something changes, i'll make sure you're the first to know.
In other worlds you have no logical response
It isn't my job to understand things for you.
Your personal inability to recognize value is of no concern to me.
Hilarious, you just contradicted yourself.
Where do you get this stupid shit?
I believe you have to be on some DNC mailing list or some other such nonsense.
If I got some coo coo stuff like that in my mailbox, it would go to where the credit card offers go, straight to the recycle bin. Won't even darken my front door.
Quit following the toilet paper roll as you information and you would know
You get the same facts from your sources try it someday Tex
Thank you so very, very much for your usual witty reply.
/s
Who supposedly vetted Trump's first Russian casualty, the 3 star general ?
I'm prepared to have an open mind about the claim that this isn't a call for all-out confiscation, but you're going to have explain the difference between confiscation and mandatory buyback. If you're only distinction is that I'm financially compensated for my loss, sorry, but that's still confiscation. You're still taking my property.
The thing that gets me about this is the zealous nature of this “gun control” narrative. Meanwhile drug overdose continue to set records in the US and have been growing on an exponential pace in comparison to gun deaths. Especially when considering nearly 2/3rds of all gun deaths are by choice as suicides.
Where are all the crusaders for drug control?
I, like many law abiding gun owners, am all in for truly common sense and effective gun control. I just don’t trust the zealots who are trying to control the narrative to use anything resembling “common sense” when they offer their ideas up.
One look at this thread is all one needs to do to see that.
Who ever you are you don't NEED a gun. You might want a gun, you might like guns, you may not feel safe without one,
But you don't need one.
Personally the reason I don't get too upset about gun control, is that gun owners are way more likely to kill themselves or a family member than they are to use it to attack someone else.
It's like if all US politicians got suicidal when they saw red... So you send them Santa suits.
So send the violent wankers all the guns they want, and a summary of their life stories.
No more gun control problem
True but entirely beside the point. Entirely.
So true again and exactly why we don't need more gun control. The majority of gun owners are legal gun owners and aren't part of the crime problem related to guns. Thanks for pointing that out.
What problem? Since as you say they are more likely to kill themselves and theirs, the problem should take care of itself according to your logic. Considering there are allegedly hundreds of millions of guns in the US, allegedly owned by only millions, it shouldn't take long. Right?
Do you realize that you are agreeing with me like you disagree with me. I'm not for gun control it's just about as stupid as guns.
Anyone with knowledge and access to the right kind of equipment can simply make a gun... and the bullets.
You can't control knowledge.
Doesn't change the fact that it's pretty foolish to own a gun... or a nuke.
Have you heard of Ephemeralization. This scientist name Buckminster Fuller figured it out.
What it means is that as tech advances it become easier and easier to make tech... all kinds of tech.
Including weapons of mass destruction.
A printed gun is a good example of this.
So the reason I think guns are dumb is because we are getting to the point were anyone with a mad on will be able to make or get their hands on extremely powerful weapons of mass destruction.
Lots of fissile material in space. And that is where we are headed if we survive. Lots of other types of weapons that don't need special material that are becoming easier and easier to manufacture.
Like germs. One dude with the right equipment now can do some serious biological damage. Might not be able to design a super bug from scratch yet. But no need, someone has already done that work.
The point being that we are gonna have to figure out our violence problem before we get to that point. Or high school shooters might be able to kill entire cities.
Weapons are not a good idea at this point in our history
Nah, i clearly disagree with you on multiple levels.
The largest being your "need" comment. Americans don't "need" a lot of things and yet we have the freedom to own them if we so choose. Guns are one of those things. One of the few that just happens to be mentioned rather prolifically in a little document called the Bill of Rights. Now i know a lot of folks from other countries, and even some within the US, try to hack away at this rather unique document every chance they get but alas, to no avail. And rightly so.
Perhaps there is a modicum of agreement there as my comments have clearly pointed out. But make no mistake, in the scheme of things, any agreement is very minute. That and your understanding of legal gun ownership in the US appears to be very sophomoric in nature. By and large most guns in the US are owned legally and will never be used illegally in any way. And yet, you apparently support throwing that baby out with the bathwater. Not very informed i must say .....
Then you probably should have said that in the comment you were agreeing with me on.
I did .... reading comprehension is your friend Dan.
Here is the relevant comment from you. Would you mind pointing out the part where you are disagreeing with me?
I'm not the smartest guy in the world so sometimes I can miss things.
Exactly. It's a violence problem.
Okay, i can't tell if you are being serious of not but lets see if i can help you out regardless.
You sed: Who ever you are you don't NEED a gun
To which i sed: True but entirely beside the point. Entirely.
The point being that it is not always true that one would NEED a gun but one is free to own one if they so CHOOSE. One might NEED a gun for self protection, for their job or to hunt with but one doesn't NEED a gun for example to simply enjoy shooting one. That is a choice they are still FREE to make in the USA. You don't NEED a 16 pound bowling ball but you are free to buy one if you so CHOOSE. You don't NEED a car with 500 horsepower and yet you can still CHOOSE to buy one. You don't NEED that second or twelfth drink but you still might CHOOSE to order them. You don't need multiple bathrooms in your house but you may CHOOSE to build them. Etc, etc
Freedom of choice ..... what a concept eh?
You agreed with me twice in your first comment to me. And asked me a question.
Maybe I'm confused by the definition of agreement.
So, I don't regard the Constitution as that credible a document. I guess you do. We'd have to talk about that first before we can get very much further. Because you are going to keep referring to something I put on about the same level as Harry Potter.
So, if I don't think much of the Constitution and it is the foundation of the law in this land. You can imagine that I don't think the law has very much credibility either.
And I have lots of evidence for my position and the fundamental error in law itself standing on my side of things.
Everyone tells me that my knowledge is sophomoric or nonsense or some other dismissive thing.
I always invite them to debate me on whatever it is they think I'm wrong on.
I politely extend that invitation to you.
I suppose this was intended for me although that is not 100% clear the way you have offer it.
Yes you are. At least in context with my comments
Damn right i do and there is nothing really to debate here in that regard. It's doubtful any of your spin or rationalization will change that.
Sure can and after my comments, you can understand how we are polar opposites in that regard.
As do i but debating it with you will clearly fall on deaf ears in your case so there would be no point to it now would there? You obviously have your mind made up and i have no interest in even trying to change it. That would be a fools errand from what i've seen of you here so far and mamma sparty raised no fools.
Then maybe you should start listening
I would not call what you want a "debate." But rather another word that starts with a "T" and ends on a roll
Thanks but here is where your game ends with me.
All the best in your future endeavors here.
You don't want to debate me. That's fine with me. Nothing says you have to.
Good luck to you as well.